Reverse Engineering Wall Street
Bankruptcy Judge Margaret M. Mann Strikes Down Deutsche
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
The Honorable Judge Mann in Southern California brings the MERS issue up hard against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.
Read the ruling – in re: Doble, Doble v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Doble-v-Deutsche-Bank.pdf
Appeals Court Ruling Against MERS in Michigan Reverses District Court Non-Judicial Proceedings
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Selected excerpts:
These consolidated cases each involve a foreclosure instituted by Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), the mortgagee in both cases. The sole question presented is whether MERS is an entity that qualifies under MCL 600.3204(1)(d) to foreclose by advertisement on the subject properties, or if it must instead seek to foreclose by judicial process. We hold that MERS does not meet the requirements of MCL 600.3204(1)(d) and, therefore, may not foreclose by advertisement.
MERS would purportedly track the mortgage sales internally so as to know for which entity it was holding the mortgage at any given time and, if foreclosure was necessary, after foreclosing on the property, would quit claim the property to whatever lender owned the loan at the time of foreclosure.
Cease & Desist Orders for: Citigroup, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, MetLife, PNC, SunTrust, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo Bank
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
The latest round of Cease and Desist orders issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) are against some of the largest “too big to fail” banks. Notably missing so far is Deutsche Bank National Trust Company along with Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas and of course OneWest Bank.
The gist of these Cease and Desist orders is that certain “deficiencies” were found and the banks are operating with “unsafe or unsound” practices in residential mortgage servicing and in the Bank’s initiation and handling of foreclosure proceedings.
We hail the OCC for these efforts, but the problem is following up. How are the banks going to immediately comply with this order? They would have to stop processing nearly every single foreclosure they are working on today.
MERS CEASE AND DESIST FOR CERTAIN DEFICIENCIES AND UNSAFE OR UNSOUND PRACTICES!!!
By Daniel Edstrom and Jim Macklin
DTC Systems, Inc. and Secure Document Research
On April 13, 2011 the Department of the Treasury, Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governers of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift Supervision and the Federal Housing Finance Agency have issued a consent order stating that these agencies have identified
“certain deficienies and unsafe or unsound practices by MERS and MERSCORP that present financial, operational, compliance, legal and reputational risks to MERS and MERSCORP that present financial, operational, complaince, legal and reputational risks to MERSCORP and MERS, and to the participating Members.”
OCC No. AA-EC-11-20
Board of Governers Docket Nos. 11-051-B-SC-1, 11-051-B-SC-2
FDIC-11-194b
OTS No. 11-040
FHFA No. EAP-11-01
Read the full 31 page Consent Order here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/MERS_Cease_and_Desist_2011_04_13.pdf
Bankruptcy Judge Margaret M. Mann GETS IT!
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Coming off of the heels of in re: Agard (http://dtc-systems.net/2011/02/mers-agency-york-bankruptcy-court-agard/), the Honorable Judge Mann from the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of California took 76 days to review the Motion for Relief From Automatic Stay for the in re: Salazar Chapter 13 bankruptcy (Bankruptcy No: 10-17456-MM13). The findings of fact and conclusions of law were an amazing reading that confirms many of the issues we have been discussing in regards to loans, securitization and foreclosure. Like Judge Grossman in the agard case, Judge Mann goes to great lengths to research the details that are applicable to this case. Here are some highlights: Continue reading “Bankruptcy Judge Margaret M. Mann GETS IT!”
LAWYERS CLE WORKSHOP ON FORECLOSURE DEFENSE AND OFFENSE
April 30 to May 1, 2011 – in Phoenix, Arizona
Venue is to be determined
Sponsored by the GARFIELD CONTINUUM
SPONSORED IN PART BY WWW.LIVINGLIES.COM AND LIVINGLIES BLOG
This is a two-day seminar on litigation and negotiation of residential loans that are claimed to be securitized. Early registration is advised. Continue reading “LAWYERS CLE WORKSHOP ON FORECLOSURE DEFENSE AND OFFENSE”
Update on Foreclosures in Oregon
David Ambrose
Ambrose Law Group, LLC
Here is the latest, which while limited to Oregon, certainly can be applicable to any other states permitting nonjudicial foreclosure actions but requiring the recording of assignments of the mortgage or trust deed.
You may recall the postings about the decision of Judge Alley in U.S Bankruptcy Court in Oregon (McCoy v BNC Mortgage), finding that in to proceed with nonjudicial foreclosures in Oregon, the applicable statute requires that there be a chain of recorded assignments (which, by the way, in Oregon you cannot record a document unless it is notarized), from the original beneficiary to the current beneficiary, and that MERS is not the beneficiary.
MERS Getting Crushed in Oregon – Three Rulings Against MERS in February Alone
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Brent Hunsberger from the Oregonian has reported that hundreds of Oregon foreclosure sales have been stopped after judges’ rulings (http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/03/rulings_put_brakes_on_hundreds.html). Two rulings are from October 2010, but three rulings were from February 2011. Apparently Oregon has a law requiring all intervening assignments be recorded. This appears to be a problem since MERS was specifically designed to hide the beneficial ownership of the loan and to avoid the payment of taxes on the transfer or assignment of the loan. The interesting thing is this article from the Oregonian says that the legislature needs to “fix” this issue. But the current laws appear to be sufficient. It wasn’t the homeowners across the United States who decided to defraud the homeowners, county and state governments, it was the banks that were looking to defraud homeowners, county and state governments.
Continue reading “MERS Getting Crushed in Oregon – Three Rulings Against MERS in February Alone”
L Randall Wray – MERS is Toast – RIP
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
If you have MERS on your loan, banks messed up big time and get no “do over” – congratulations on owning your house free and clear (once you wrestle it free of the big banks that is). So says L Randall Wray, who is the Professor of Economics and Research Director of the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri–Kansas City. Read his entire article here: http://www.benzinga.com/news/11/02/867233/new-yorks-us-bankruptcy-court-rules-merss-business-model-is-illegal
Congratulations to the mega banks and companies that are MERS shareholders:
The following is a New York Bankruptcy motion for relief from stay ruling from February 10th, 2011
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
—————————————————————–x
In re:
Case No. 810-77338-reg
FERREL L. AGARD,
Chapter 7
Debtor.
—————————————————————–x
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Before the Court is a motion (the “Motion”) seeking relief from the automatic stay
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2), to foreclose on a secured interest in the Debtor’s real
property located in Westbury, New York (the “Property”). The movant is Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc. (“Select Portfolio” or “Movant”), as servicer for U.S. Bank National Association,
as Trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF12, Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2006-FF12 (“U.S. Bank”). The Debtor filed limited opposition to the Motion
contesting the Movant’s standing to seek relief from stay. The Debtor argues that the only
interest U.S. Bank holds in the underlying mortgage was received by way of an assignment from
the Mortgage Electronic Registration System a/k/a MERS, as a “nominee” for the original
lender. The Debtor’s argument raises a fundamental question as to whether MERS had the legal
authority to assign a valid and enforceable interest in the subject mortgage. Because U.S. Bank’s
rights can be no greater than the rights as transferred by its assignor – MERS – the Debtor argues
that the Movant, acting on behalf of U.S. Bank, has failed to establish that it holds an
enforceable right against the Property.1 The Movant’s initial response to the Debtor’s opposition was that
MERS’s authority to assign the mortgage to U.S. Bank is derived from the mortgage itself which
allegedly grants to MERS its status as both “nominee” of the mortgagee and “mortgagee of
record.” The Movant later supplemented its papers taking the position that U.S. Bank is a
creditor with standing to seek relief from stay by virtue of a judgment of foreclosure and sale
entered in its favor by the state court prior to the filing of the bankruptcy. The Movant argues
that the judgment of foreclosure is a final adjudication as to U.S. Bank’s status as a secured
creditor and therefore the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits this Court from looking behind the
judgment and questioning whether U.S. Bank has proper standing before this Court by virtue of a
valid assignment of the mortgage from MERS.
Continue reading “MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard”